DEEPAK RAJ Vs. SARITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by one of the defendants who purchased part of the suit property after an agreement to sell was executed by defendant No. 1 Brahm Prakash who died during the pendency of the suit and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were substituted as heir and legal representatives.

(2.) Respondent No. 1. Smt. Sarita Rani in her suit alleged that she had agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 40,000 through registered agreement dated 26.7.1991 executed by Brahm Prakash. A sum of Rs. 35,000 was advanced at the time of execution of the agreement and balance of Rs. 5,000 was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The property consisted of 4 shops as described at the end of the plaint. She alleged that she was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after performing her part of contract and was still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. The defendant No. 1, however, one or the other pretext has been postponing the execution of the sale deed. She had served notice dated 17.8.1991 through a lawyer but the defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed. Another notice dated 27.9.1991 was served but without any result. Defendant No. 2 (the present appellant before this Court) having notice of the agreement to sell purchased part of the suit property. The sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 2 was not intended to be acted upon and was a fictitious document. The prayer made by the plaintiff was that by a decree of specific performance ; the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed after obtaining balance of Rs. 5,000 within the time prescribed by the Court failing which the sale deed be got executed through the Court. In the alternative, the relief claimed was that in case the Court found that it was not possible to get the sale deed executed, a decree of Rs. 40,000 along with interest be passed against the defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. The main ground of defence of the appellant was that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of agreement to sell.